The core idea
A policy states an organisation’s approach and guiding principles; a procedure explains the steps for dealing with a situation. Armstrong and Taylor distinguish these while recognising that practice often combines them. A good document helps someone make a decision, understand responsibilities and find support. Length and legal-sounding language are not reliable measures of quality.
Source and attribution [1]Using it in practice
Begin with the user’s question and the policy’s purpose. Define scope, responsibilities, essential steps and where judgement is permitted. Separate organisational choices from legal requirements. Test realistic scenarios with employees and managers, including exceptions. Obtain appropriate legal review where needed, communicate the change and assign an owner and review trigger.
An example, not a reported case
Worked example · illustrative
A long absence policy contains several conflicting reporting routes. HR rewrites the opening as a clear explanation of who to contact, when and what support is available. Detailed manager guidance sits behind it. Testing with shift workers reveals that the stated contact is unavailable at night, so the process is corrected before publication.
What to watch for
A template may reflect another organisation or an outdated legal position. Policies can interact with contracts and established practice. Do not assume a disclaimer removes contractual or consultation implications. The handbook’s 2023 law chapter is historical reading; use the site’s dated legal guides and current official sources for present requirements.
Design the exception route
Explain who can approve a departure from the normal approach and how reasons are recorded. Consistency does not mean ignoring relevant differences. Unrecorded exceptions make it difficult to distinguish reasonable flexibility from favouritism.
Test comprehension, not just approval
Ask users to find the answer to a realistic question and describe what they would do. Look for ambiguous terms, inaccessible formats and steps that cannot be completed in normal working conditions. Senior sign-off does not prove usability.
Maintain one reliable version
Give each policy an owner, effective date and review date. Preserve superseded versions with clear labels and control access to sensitive guidance. Review when law, work or recurring cases reveal a problem, rather than relying only on an annual calendar.
Take it into your next conversation
Three useful questions.
- Can the intended user find their next step?
- Which statements are legal duties and which are our choices?
- Who resolves an exception or updates an error?
Related terms
Go to the evidence
Sources & attribution
Further reading: Michael Armstrong with Stephen Taylor (2023), Armstrong’s Handbook of Human Resource Management Practice, 16th edition, chapters 58–60. Edition & reading notes ↗
[1] Armstrong & Taylor (2023), 16th edition, chapters 58–60 — reading notes ↗
The core idea is an original summary of the cited work. Application notes, examples and sketches are our interpretations, not quotations or reproductions of the authors’ figures. Publisher records may require access to read the full original work.
Original teaching guide informed by the cited handbook chapters. The four-step sketch is an ADM HR application aid, not a named Armstrong model. Examples are invented. The 2023 book is not used to establish current employment law.
Published 2026-09-25 · Reviewed 2026-09-25. Editorial approach